It's funny how defensive Apple fans (or possibly shareholders) are of the almighty Apple. I love a range of different devices across the years, from a vareity of manufactuers, but I understand the process of design, nothing is created in a perfectly insulated vacuum chamber - including the iPhone and iPad.

I have no personal problem with devices that follow Apple's design cues. I have a problem when people refuse to acknowledge Apple's role as industry trendsetter; many even go as far to say that Apple's designs aren't unique or anything special or that such-and-such did it first.

Just pay your respect, and don't make it so similar that it causes confusion.

Are you implying that the superficial similarities between Apple's current products and those of Apple's competitors, along with the superficial differences among the previous products of Apple's competitors, have any deeper meaning than being superficial similarities, or superficial differences?

No, I'm stating it outright.

Android looked like BlackBerry OS before the iPhone was announced and like the iPhone afterward. There weren't touchscreen phones with grids of icons before the iPhone was announced and were afterward.

Heck, in the three years between the iPhone's announcement and the iPad's announcement, no one bothered to TRY putting a grid of icons on a tablet-sized device. They kept making Windows tablets. They had THREE years to do it, but no one did. And afterward, well

[...] Apple will "continue its barrage of patent litigation," and may use feedback from the court to file even stronger motions for preliminary injunctions against Android devices in the future. [...]

It's still early days. And Apple has many more patents, unencumbered by FRAND, that they will be forced to protect.

And why shouldn't they? Android is "stolen property" and as such, it needs to be crushed.
It's already D.O.A. in the pad computing space (unless you count the Kindle Fire "padlet.")
So Apple only needs to defend themselves in the mobile phone space. Nice and simple.

That phrase really seems out of place, and the fact that you used such a phrase in conjunction with your monicker "Dr" implies that you're trying to look smart.

If I wanted to look smart, I'd simply refrain from posting on AI.

The meaningless collage was trying to illustrate how everyone has copied Apple's designs by insinuating that the temporal correlation in the degree of similarity in outer design of the products in question (low similarity in the past, high similarity now) is a proof that other manufacturers have been aping Apple's designs. The phrase I posted is the classical rebuttal of that fallacy; in few words, the designs may have converged for reasons other than everyone copying Apple, and the extent and direction of copying cannot be determined by the similarities alone.

I'm sorry if my post still looks unclear, that's the simplest I can do right now. I hope you got my point.

I just want to point out those images have likely been purposefully crafted to show Apple in the best light. Just check out this image, which gives another true selection of tablets, before and after iPad.

LOL. like how far zoomed out that image is, obviously purposefully crafted to show Apple in the worst light. Notice all those are several inches thick, include a multitude of buttons on the bevel, pen input, run a bloated desktop Microsoft OS, big fans, etc...

After ipad, no buttons, thin, light weight OS, no pen, finger input, etc... So yes, there is very big change once the iPad was released. yes, they all copied Apple. thanks for playing.

Even with this stated, I don't think Apple should be prevented from using Slide to Unlock. However, I don't think they should be allowed to patent it. It's fundamental to use, just like entering data is fundamental, and reading items on the screen is fundamental.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

No, I'm stating it outright.

Android looked like BlackBerry OS before the iPhone was announced and like the iPhone afterward. There weren't touchscreen phones with grids of icons before the iPhone was announced and were afterward.

Heck, in the three years between the iPhone's announcement and the iPad's announcement, no one bothered to TRY putting a grid of icons on a tablet-sized device. They kept making Windows tablets. They had THREE years to do it, but no one did. And afterward, well…

What about Palm? They had everyone beat, and icons on a grid was their fundamental UI design layout.

This is all the natural evolution of computing. The idea that these processes and fundamentals are "patented" is the product of a poor US patent system.

The comical part of this forum is that if the reverse was in gear, and Google (or any of Android's manufacturers) were suing Apple, you would all cry foul.

In fact, when those manufacturers do press litigation back at Apple, you all cry foul.

To change direction, I would personally like to see a paradigm change in the industry, where when someone purchases a phone, they are free to install whatever OS on it they choose, just like one can elect to do with a computer. You shouldn't be locked in to iOS, WP7, Android, or anything else.

And I also personally think it's a travesty that by being "locked" to an OS by carrier and manufacturer, one is practically forced to upgrade hardware in order to upgrade software. I have a 2 year old Android phone running the latest version of Android, and it works wonderfully.

Throwing away hardware annually for no reason makes no sense economically and only generates additional (unnecessary) waste, and that's why I support Android--and want to see it's environment opened further, so that phones can be promoted to longer lifespans with the ability to have the latest software.

Apple, although they do a respectable job in updating their own software, forces Apple consumers to upgrade as a consequence of buying their products. This is evident in the additional support jailbreaking brings to iDevices.

I don't agree with the argument "if it was the other way around." That is simply a false comparison, and it doesn't change whether or not apple is justified. It just turns the argument toward the users (and it's not hard to find idiots on either side of the spectrum, so basically you're saying "I'm not good at the big leagues-let's play teeball)

And I don't understand how the argument of having to buy new hardware in order to get the new software favors android. It's the opposite. See: the 3GS is still on sale. Also see: year old phones that will not upgrade to ICS

Android looked like BlackBerry OS before the iPhone was announced and like the iPhone afterward. There weren't touchscreen phones with grids of icons before the iPhone was announced and were afterward.

Heck, in the three years between the iPhone's announcement and the iPad's announcement, no one bothered to TRY putting a grid of icons on a tablet-sized device. They kept making Windows tablets. They had THREE years to do it, but no one did. And afterward, well

One simple question I have, is a grid's of icons that special?
Isn't this what the earliest file managers did?
Android had limited resolution, and screen sizes, at one time, until they modernized their phone offerings. Is it impossible to think they simply had a grid of icons, because the screen offerded them more space, and they wanted to use if for something, and icons are extremely obvious? I knows earlier Windows Mobile phones had some versions with icons, sometimes smaller icons, with text, how is this much different?

Android looked like BlackBerry OS before the iPhone was announced and like the iPhone afterward. There weren't touchscreen phones with grids of icons before the iPhone was announced and were afterward.

Heck, in the three years between the iPhone's announcement and the iPad's announcement, no one bothered to TRY putting a grid of icons on a tablet-sized device. They kept making Windows tablets. They had THREE years to do it, but no one did. And afterward, well

I don't agree with the argument "if it was the other way around." That is simply a false comparison, and it doesn't change whether or not apple is justified. It just turns the argument toward the users (and it's not hard to find idiots on either side of the spectrum, so basically you're saying "I'm not good at the big leagues-let's play teeball)

And I don't understand how the argument of having to buy new hardware in order to get the new software favors android. It's the opposite. See: the 3GS is still on sale. Also see: year old phones that will not upgrade to ICS

The point is that people are blinded by fanaticism, when really, they don't agree with what they're supporting--but they support it to support Apple.

As for my second argument, you'll see that I'm pushing for a paradigm change, where you can install the OS of your choice, and are no longer locked into an OS by carrier or vendor.

The point is that Android is provided for free as source, so it allows us to openly modify and install it on our devices as we see fit. A 2-year-old Evo runs ICS just fine, and will probably continue to be a good phone two years from now (should I want to continue using it.)

in few words, the designs may have converged for reasons other than everyone copying Apple, and the extent and direction of copying cannot be determined by the similarities alone.

Right, it was just the logical step to stop selling every kind of phone but black ones in the candy bar format with a screen that takes up the entire front.

It was also a logical step to retool phone packaging from a standard cardboard box with that one kind of side flap that has the curved teeth to a full-reveal top where the product is the first (and only) thing you see when you first open the box instead of all the manuals and other junk that comes with the device.

Apple just happened to be the first one to do both of those things, but at that time, that's what EVERYONE was just about to do.

I understand what you're saying and I understand that what you've said is a physical possibility within the operational parameters of the Universe and the laws of probability, but come on.

Even with this stated, I don't think Apple should be prevented from using Slide to Unlock. However, I don't think they should be allowed to patent it. It's fundamental to use, just like entering data is fundamental, and reading items on the screen is fundamental.

I've seen the "neonode" or whatever it's called. It's not at all the same. It's not the gesture Apple patented, it's the gesture in conjunction with an image and a specific path.

EDIT: Also, if the slide-to-unlock is so FUNDAMENTAL to use, why did so many devices before the iPhone not use a similar approach? You have a strange definition of "fundamental".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shidell

What about Palm? They had everyone beat, and icons on a grid was their fundamental UI design layout.

This is all the natural evolution of computing. The idea that these processes and fundamentals are "patented" is the product of a poor US patent system.

Android looked like BlackBerry OS before the iPhone was announced and like the iPhone afterward. There weren't touchscreen phones with grids of icons before the iPhone was announced and were afterward.

Yawn. That argument is getting really old by now. Yes, ONE of the primitive 'publicly seen' alpha-models had a blackberry-esque feel to it but the SDK at that point, even early on fully supported full touch systems too, that didn't happen overnight, and it was before the iPhone was released. Continual denial and acting like Google never thought of a touch phone until Steve rolled one out on stage is simply ridiculous. Obviously the success of the iPhone pushed Google to take Android much further into a touch direction.

The comical part of this forum is that if the reverse was in gear, and Google (or any of Android's manufacturers) were suing Apple, you would all cry foul.

Yes, it's absolutely shocking how the fanboys here support lawsuits brought against copiers by innovators but don't support lawsuits brought against innovators by copiers - just shocking! How can we justify such blatant hypocrisy? Kudos for you, sir, for bringing this out into the open!

Thanks for following. Now, if you do understand those things, then you also understand that posting those images doesn't prove anything and is mere flamebait.

I think 'flamebait' would be more 'deluding oneself into thinking that the current slew of phones and tablets looks the way it does for ANY reason other than the fact that Apple did what it did'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thataveragejoe

Yes, ONE of the primitive 'publicly seen' alpha-models had a blackberry-esque feel to it but the SDK at that point, even early on fully supported full touch systems too, that didn't happen overnight, and it was before the iPhone was released.

December 2007 was before the iPhone was released?

Quote:

Continual denial and acting like Google never thought of a touch phone until Steve rolled one out on stage is simply ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is implying that I said that, when in actuality I said nothing of the sort.

The point is that people are blinded by fanaticism, when really, they don't agree with what they're supporting--but they support it to support Apple.

To some extent yes, people are very passionate about Apple. Because Apple innovates and others copy, Apple has managed to keep the underdog status in spite of being the largest company in the world.

Quote:

As for my second argument, you'll see that I'm pushing for a paradigm change, where you can install the OS of your choice, and are no longer locked into an OS by carrier or vendor.

The point is that Android is provided for free as source, so it allows us to openly modify and install it on our devices as we see fit. A 2-year-old Evo runs ICS just fine, and will probably continue to be a good phone two years from now (should I want to continue using it.)

Well, great. Bully for you and Android. Apple fan(attic)s may try and shout you down but seriously, they don't care. We're happy for you. What we don't like is that you blatantly copy us. It gives us the moral high ground and Apple the right to sue. So keep your paradigm shift. If you love Android and the multitudes of devices why do you care what Apple does?

So it's blatant copying when Google does it, but when Apple does it, it's OK?

Some moral high ground.

Alas, we've found the holy grail of Android apologists: the notification bar. If you're not familiar with it, it is worshipped in some circles because it is believed to have the magical effect of countering all the many, many, many allegations of what Google copied from Apple.

Unfortunately, if you turn it over, it has a stamp that says "Made in webOS".

No they aren't or you won't have posted an image of the Samsung SPH-i300 which has buttons all over the front.

You're also being your typical self in tacking something very specific, which is Apple's entrance into the market with a multitouch capacitance touchscreen as the primary I/O and with years of SW to make it work well and then comparing to any tochscreen device you can find that existed before the iPhone even though no one stated that Apple invented the touchscreen or has exclusive rights to any and all touchscreen patents.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Alas, we've found the holy grail of Android apologists: the notification bar. If you're not familiar with it, it is worshipped in some circles because it is believed to have the magical effect of countering all the many, many, many allegations of what Google copied from Apple.

Unfortunately, if you turn it over, it has a stamp that says "Made in webOS".

No they aren't or you won't have posted an image of the Samsung SPH-i300 which has buttons all over the front.

You're also being your typical self in tacking something very specific, which is Apple's entrance into the market with a multitouch capacitance touchscreen as the primary I/O and with years of SW to make it work well and then comparing to any tochscreen device you can find that existed before the iPhone even though no one stated that Apple invented the touchscreen or has exclusive rights to any and all touchscreen patents.

What you fail to see in the aggregated picture is that it is portraying the majority of the devices as having a keyboard as its predominant real estate on the devices and claiming that Apple's introduction of the iPhone, everyone started mimicking Apple'd design direction of having screen first, then buttons second.

HOWEVER, this device clearly shows that Apple wasn't the first to introduce a screen first and buttons second design language.

Samsung predated Apple in introducing a screen first/ button second design in 2002 for Sprint network ( of which I've personally owned).

Please stop trying to deny the obvious.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400." - 11/21/12 by Galbi

It registered inputs the same way all resistive touchscreen register inputs. You really are the worse debater ever.

Stop trying to carry this argument away from design and into the functionality. They are two completely different things. The pictures are comparing the designs of the devices, NOT functions or capabilities.

What people like you are doing is, after getting caught with evidence to the contrary, you start to latch onto other, more specific, arguments to refute my claims and statements.

Stop trying to beat around the bushes and just admit that you were wrong. The more you try to argue otherwise makes you more pathetic and less of a man. MAN UP!

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400." - 11/21/12 by Galbi

There's a lot of history between Palm and Apple, and we're not privy to all the details. It is likely predated by something else, or it was originally created in the open-source community (I believe many jailbreakers claim they created it).

More likely, however, is that only the *concept* is the same; Apple's notification center is quite different than Android's or webOS', and many reviewers have noted this.